Talk:Captain Wasea
Isn't she wearing a piece of armour that resembles/is N7 armour? Partisan Armor Speculation Where in the game or other media is it stated that Wasea wears Partisan armor? Unless is is directly named as such, then it is pure speculation, and should be removed from the article. The only place that it even makes sense to put this information at would be under Trivia, and then it would have to say something like The armor Wasea wears closely resembles batarian Partisan Armor, instead of the usual yellow Eclipse armor. So, unless it is confirmed that that is Partisan Armor, I think that line should be removed from the article. InfiniteAmo 14:16, February 21, 2011 (UTC) :No it is never confirmed and will be removed. Lancer1289 14:33, February 21, 2011 (UTC) :Alright then. But isn't it still viable as trivia, provided that it is phrased appropriately? In all honesty, it more than likely IS Partisan armor, but since it can't be confirmed, that's just speculation. oh well. InfiniteAmo 14:39, February 21, 2011 (UTC) :No as it is based on a visual comparison, which isn't trivia by the guidelines. We would need more than a visual comparison to justify trivia. Lancer1289 14:44, February 21, 2011 (UTC) ::That is preposterous. This is like saying that one has to cut open an apple to determine that it is indeed an apple. By your standards, you could hear Jingle Bells, but reject that it could be identified as Jingle Bells because you can't say for sure whether it exactly fits your mental template for the song. I will integrate the note back into the article. 03:27, December 29, 2011 (UTC) :::Except that it violates site guidelines, but apparently that means nothing to you. Site policies regarding trivia require it to be confirmed by a source other than visual comparison, given how the armor system changed from ME to ME2, and since it hasn't been provided, and apparently will never be, it cannot go into the article. Further integration of the item will be reverted and if it persists then further action will have to be taken. Lancer1289 03:41, December 29, 2011 (UTC) ::::That is patently incorrect. The manual of style does not require confirmation; it never has and never will. The only particular facet which suggests dev confirmation is naming origins. You should know this: you wrote the section on visual comparison. Thus, I suspect you are conflating your current opinion and site policy. Quite simply, there is absolutely no reason to reject the proposition that the armor is extremely similar in appearance to the Partisan Armor. To argue otherwise would require extreme deficiencies in vision. Whether it can be called Partisan Armor is moot; the appearance is the issue. This issue is more clear-cut than, say, the comparison of the Presidium to the Stanford Torus, which you were quite happy with keeping. The issue is the same, of course. You could not claim that the artist's rendering of the Stanford Torus is the inspiration for the Presidium without developer confirmation, but it would be foolish not to note the obvious similarities. 04:28, December 29, 2011 (UTC) :::::And I think you are letting your personal feelings about getting your edit undone get in the way of the facts and how trivia items are handled here. Each trivia item is handled on a case-by-case basis, and if something requires further confirmation, then it is asked for on a case by case basis. If we allowed trivia based on a straight visual comparison, then we'd have trivia saying Omega looks like High Charity. You also ignored the fact that I stated how the armor system changed from ME to ME2, and because of that, we require confirmation on this matter. "It looks like this" has never been a justification for trivia, anywhere on the site, at any time. And it won't be justification for trivia anytime soon. Get confirmation that it is the armor, or this conversation will go nowhere because without it, there is no trivia and no reason to include it. Lancer1289 04:39, December 29, 2011 (UTC) ::::::I see we will get nowhere with this. Your justification, as I have read it, is that you are allowed judgment on a case-by-case basis without regard to policy. That is simply not acceptable in a wiki. Again, I will seek to involve other editors. 04:59, December 29, 2011 (UTC) :::::No because I'm, and this may come as a big surprise, acting within site policy. Currently your "addition" doesn't meet the guidelines for trivia, and it won't without aforementioned confirmation. Since you seem to be so adamant on "popular support", note that is also not an acceptable means of getting trivia into an article. This requires confirmation due to the problems I listed above, which you have completely ignored I might add. Because of the gameplay, universe, and other changes between the games, confirmation is required. So far, only a visual comparison has been provided, and that isn't enough in any case. Again, a fact you have now ignored twice. Lancer1289 05:06, December 29, 2011 (UTC) Indent reset. Please review the relevant section of the Manual of Style and point out where you are getting this policy. Furthermore, model re-use is completely independent of universe either way. You keep pressing for some extraneous information. Gameplay and universe changes have absolutely no impact on this piece of information. Also, regarding "popular support", this is a wiki. Consensus is the goal, not a democratic vote and not an autocratic dictate. A few more sets of eyes on this should shed some light, regardless. 07:08, December 29, 2011 (UTC) :I do not need to be quoted policy that I full well know, and I find it insulting that you did that. You also seem to fail to realize that not everything is written down as it would not only be counterproductive, because every time a new situation came up, we would have to write something new down. Over time, it would become so cumbersome because we would have so many different things, that we would have touble making sense of it. As it stands, trivia on this site is handled on a case-by-case basis and I can point to several examples of where this has been enforced. Sometimes not always on talk pages, but in edit summaries. Regardless, trivia is handled on a case-by-case basis, and if not one, but two people have a problem with it, and both ask for the same thing, then clearly there is an issue with it. :You are so dead set on getting what you want, that you ignore the facts. The fact that asking for confirmation on a piece of trivia is not unheard of, unwise, or for that matter unreasonable, but you are making it just that. You want what you want, and when someone, actually two people, make a reasonable request, you just ignore it, ignore anything they throw up as a problem, and just try and force it through. You barely touched on the issues that I cited as problems, and you came up with the answer that I've seen so many times before, that it didn't even surprise me. You say that it has no impact, and yet nothing could be further from the truth. Everything must be taken into account when considering trivia, and when someone asks us to ignore something, that isn't right. :The fact remains however that while it may look like the armor, without confirmation, it is a comparison, in reality it is a guess, based on a visual comparison, and therefore it is classified as speculation. Speculation, per site policy, isn't permitted in articles, and given the changes that have happened between the games, devconfirmation is required for this piece of trivia. This is not an unreasonable request, from not one but two people, but you persist in making it sound like I'm asking you to make a life-or-death decision that affects someone you deeply care about. Lancer1289 07:31, December 29, 2011 (UTC) ::"...not everything is written down..." If you, an administrator, can't be trusted to keep the Manual of Style up-to-date, then you render the MoS to be an invalid code of conduct. It is legal precedent that the wording in a contract benefits the party that DID NOT write it. I remember SpartHawg948 himself correcting you on your attempted use of unwritten rules. There were 10 Commandments. You cannot try to enforce a here-to-fore unknown 11th Commandment on the grounds that God ran out of tablet space. SlayerEGO1342 17:32, December 29, 2011 (UTC) :::If policy is unwritten, it cannot be followed and cannot be enforced. No, guidelines will not specifically mention every possible scenario, nor should they. That is the domain of evolving consensus in a wiki. However, there is no policy to be followed which is not written. If there is sufficient precedent to generate such an unwritten rule, than the situation is clearly common enough that it should be properly codified. The MoS should be updated to reflect consensus policy if there is a consensus policy, and I see no indication that there is such a consensus policy. :::I have provided several analogous situations. Again, a visual comparison is not merely speculation, else one could only speculate whether the word written on the page is actually "triskaidekaphobia" masquerading as "cat". The question is whether the inference is reasonable in and of itself. This notion is consistent with the current wording of the MoS. Furthermore, your assertion that dev confirmation is required is not consistent with the current MoS, and you still have not provided where that policy comes from. No, I do not believe it is reasonable to require dev confirmation for each fact, and I would argue against such a requirement being added to the MoS. However, that policy currently is not a part of the MoS, and there is no reason for anyone to follow it (not to mention that about 90% of all trivia currently in place would be in violation, including each piece I have mentioned as examples). 23:56, December 29, 2011 (UTC) I would oppose re-adding the trivia to the article. Even though I think the armor that Wasea is wearing is exactly Partisan Armor, 1) we can't be 100% certain without game or developer confirmation since all we have to go on are visual comparisons, and 2) I don't see the benefit of the trivia since the armor's brand has no bearing on gameplay whatsoever and is of questionable significance/interest. If the trivia can't be verified and serves no purpose, why add it all? The original decision to remove the trivia back in February was sound in my opinion. -- Commdor (Talk) 19:20, December 29, 2011 (UTC) :Yay, numbers! To 1), I would argue that absolute certainty is unnecessary. Asset re-use is common, even expected, especially when those assets were not used in the original. It would be a perfectly reasonable inference that it is exactly the Partisan Armor. However, that is not necessary; we only have to assert that the armor is nearly identical in appearance. It may have been tweaked in the mean-time, but the likelihood is nil that an entirely new set of armor was created with an appearance nearly identical to a previous (and yet-unused) asset. That is, while the armor is almost certainly either the original armor or a slightly modified version thereof, it is undoubtedly and undeniably nearly identical in appearance. That is the language I believe should be used. While it is not quite as forceful as asserting that the armor is indeed the same model and skin, it is more valid. :To 2), I believe that re-use of assets that were not normally accessible in the previous game are certainly of significance. For example, the use of the original Caleston assets in Bring Down the Sky is certainly viable trivia. This instance is perhaps not as impactful, but it is of the same vein. Obviously, it is a question of degrees, and that is largely a value judgment. Where do you draw the line, if I may ask? Or do you reject my reasoning for inclusion entirely, particularly in light of my choice of wording? 23:56, December 29, 2011 (UTC) SlayerEGO1342 is correct. I've said it before and I'll say it again - there is (on this wiki, anyways) no such thing as unwritten policy. If it's unwritten, it's unenforceable. To be sure, there are rules of thumb and such that aren't written into the policy, but those aren't enforceable policy. We cannot reasonably expect people to abide by policies that they can't see or read over for themselves. That said, I agree with Lancer and Commdor that the item in question in this particular instance is not valid trivia. As Commdor states, it is based 100% on assumptions which themselves are based on nothing more than visual cues. SpartHawg948 01:29, December 30, 2011 (UTC)